(first posted 6/7/2014) Here’s a lovely 1965 Chrysler 300 in that oh-so-perfect ’60s color combination of aqua/aqua. I love it! But as pretty as it is, the non-letter 300s spelled the end of Chrysler’s “banker’s hot rod.”

As you may or may not know, the 300L was the very last of the vaunted 300 “letter series” that began with the banker’s hot rod 1955 C300.

Sales of the pricy coupe (and later convertible) were never super high, and despite the appeal of a halo car in showrooms, a junior non-letter 300 appeared in 1962, replacing the ’61 Saratoga in the Chrysler lineup.

It was an immediate hit, and that hit led to even worse sales for the 300H and its successors. Final non-letter 300s disappeared after ’71, despite their cool hidden headlights and mod fuselage styling.

The “hot car” fad had moved from full-sizers to mid-size cars by 1965, thus relegating the ’65 300L to its swan song that year in your choice of hardtop coupe or convertible. All 300-Ls got a 413 CID V8 with a high-lift cam and your choice of the rugged Torque-Flite or 4-speed manual. Brake horsepower was a mighty 360 hp at 4800 rpm, breathing through a 4 BBL Carter Type AFB 3860S carburetor. It sure was a great way to go out, huh?–especially with that cool, square-rigged Elwood Engel styling!

I initially thought this car was an L, but a comment by Pete Madsen and subsequent brochure investigation led me to believe the aqua hardtop coupe is indeed not a 300-L, since it has the red-accented grille overlay and three rectangular accents on the side molding, as seen on the non-L 300 hardtop sedan above. Still, quite a pretty coupe!

94 Comments

I’ve got a thing about about period-incorrect accessories on cars, to wit, those goofy looking antennas. These are 50s items, not 60s, and they look like @ss, there should only be one, upright, power antenna. Other than that minor beef, beautiful.

Had a neighborhood friend in the late 60’s Owned the Dodge Polara version of this. Dark Blue 2 door hardtop, 383 four barrel carb, 4 speed, and bench seat. He called it “The Ark” Powerfully impressive car once it started rolling. Not great off the line, but a locomotive when it hit its stride!

Stunning and one of my favs. I love that the sides of the car thin out from front to back, making for a small yet very dramatic detail. It echoes the C-pillars which get wider at the top (rather than the bottom). Standing behind one of these cars, you can’t help but notice the long, low decklid and the very large windows.

A very pure and architectural form. Easily one of the best looking of its period.

The 300G was the last really good 300 to my thinking. It had the ram induction engine. Introducing the basic 300 non-letter series sort of ruined the 300. But 62-65 models were finless which is a good thing.

Gorgeous,even better in this colour than the red 300L I saw at a show 15 years ago.The red 300L is the only one I’ve ever seen in the metal but there’s rumoured to be a gold 4 speed on England’s south coast.
There were a lot of full size beauties on sale in 65,I don’t care if this one kicks out a few less horses than the 300K.

If you are able to remember 1964, you would know that the Ford Motor Company started the year with the notch back window on their hard-top models, similar to the 1963 models. Then midyear 64 they switched to the roofline similar to the Chrysler products. The reason? Plymouth and Dodge were kicking Ford’s rear-end in NASCAR that year.
Well, of course there was also that 426 Hemi. It was fun watching the Fords and GMs trying to keep up. I sure enjoyed being at Daytona that year.
Chrysler had this roofline from the introduction of the 64 year model.

Umm; no. The 1964 big Fords started the year with the same semi-fastback roof that the 1963.5 Fords first introduced, mid year. I think you have the two years mixed up. There was no notchback ’64 Ford coupe.

You’re right Paul. The “fastback” roof lines were introduced on the Galaxie and Falcon as part of the ‘63.5 introductions that coincided with the Monaco Grand Prix promotion. Mercury got versions for the Full size Marauder and Comet as well. Ford continued to offer the Thunderbird inspired “Box Top” Galaxie for the remainder of the ’63 model year but did not continue it for ’64.

Beautiful color and condition. That rear overhang and the trunk are huge! You will need to be careful going up steep driveways with this car. I don’t consider the styling a ripoff, more like in tune with the trends of the time.

The length is 218.2 inches, i.e. 18 feet, 2 inches and change. Having recently finished 3 months of house hunting in which I think no two houses I looked at had the same size garage, including two houses next door to each other originally built to exactly the same plans, I no longer know what an “average household garage” is. I would say that 18 to 20 feet is the typical range, so it will fit into more garages than you might think. Cars of that vintage LOOK huge but they are a bit more manageable than the enormous beasts of the 1971-78 era.

My house was built in 1958 and has an attached 2 car garage. In the mid 90s, I owned a 68 Newport sedan, which allowed about 3 inches of clearance between the back bumper and the garage door, provided there was nothing between the front bumper and the garage wall. It was a tight fit, made worse by the fact that it’s garage-mate was a 1994 Ford Club Wagon. Mrs. JPC delegated the garaging/ungaraging of vehicles to me. 🙂

Spare a thought for those of us living overseas!
My grandparents’ garage was built to house a late ’30s Standard Flying Nine (maybe 136″ long) with a bit of room at the front and sides for storage. Fast forward to 1980, and I couldn’t get my ’74 Cortina (168″) in – it was too wide and too long!

jpcavanaugh

Posted June 10, 2014 at 5:16 AM

We have a lot of that here as well with old homes from the 20s and 30s.

Beautiful car. I’ve read two reasons for the demise of the letter series 300s. 1.The senior manager who was the “cheerleader” for them retired, and 2. The letter models always looked unique, usually by deleting chrome trim.

There was little they could do with this bodystyle to differentiate the letter models. They couldn’t even easily remove the beltline moldings. The doorhandles were integrated into them, and they hid spotwelds in some places that would need extra finishing if not covered.

On the 300L the beltline chrome strip had red pinstriping painted onto it and the “L” medallion in the center of the grille lights up. The latter was actually outlawed in some US states.

They seriously considered doing a 300M, which did reach the full-size clay stage. As I recall, the big change over the ’65 would have been the deletion of the headlight covers and some other trim changes; the product planning letter on the car raises concerns about the need for more identification. The 426 wedge would have been standard, but there was a proposal for a while to offer the 426 Hemi as well.

I think they eventually concluded that it would be too expensive to sell well and would no longer buy them much as a halo car. The kids didn’t car much about full-size cars once the Mustang and the hot intermediates came out (not that a kid would have been able to afford a letter car anyway), Very sad, but I can’t really fault the logic.

Seems like 1966 was a transitional year with Chrysler engines. The 440 was just coming online, but in a low-performance version for the Imperial (the largest, non-Hemi engine available in the just introduced Dodge Charger was the 383). It’s likely that Chrysler didn’t want to confuse the last performance 426 wedge with the Hemi version, not to mention that the market for a 300M surely wouldn’t be interested in the high-strung, maintenance-intensive Hemi. The previous Hemi engines in the 300 letter cars were a lot easier to live with.

While a 1966 300M with a 426 wedge performance version as standard would have been special, it wouldn’t have made much financial sense since the 440 was soon to carry the mantle as Chrysler’s biggest performance engine. It is a shame, though, that Chrysler couldn’t get the performance 440 into a 1966 300M as a one-year special lead-in to next year’s wide availability of that engine in the Charger, GTX, and Coronet R/T.

No appropriate, limited high-performance engine that fit the series, along with waning sales of the letter cars (diluted by sales of the standard, non-letter 300), pretty much spelled the end of the ‘true’ letter 300. The final nail was the 1964 GTO which essentially moved the entire domestic performance car from the well-equipped, full-size car to the intermediates, culminating with the bare-bones 1968 Road Runner.

> It is a shame, though, that Chrysler couldn’t get the performance 440 into a 1966 300M as a one-year special lead-in to next year’s wide availability of that engine in the Charger, GTX, and Coronet R/T.

The performance version of the 440 was an available upgrade for any 1966 Chrysler, known as the “440 TNT”. However, it was rated at 365hp, not 375hp of 1967. For 1967 the high performance 440 got revised cylinder heads with better flowing ports and revised exhaust manifolds that had individual runners, more like shorty headers.

A while back someone posted a link of a guy who restored a convertible one of these, non-letter. It was a basket case, with a totally trashed interior and he did a beautiful job, with lots of doc pics. Wish I could find the link. The guy’s skill was phenomenal.

Two of my uncles bought new 1965 Chryslers. The family man got a Newport, a beige six-window sedan with a 383 and a heavy-duty package including a stiff suspension. Those who have owned or driven Mopar police cars of the era will know what that means.

The other, the bachelor, chose a 300L, in metallic blue. It was a softer, more luxury-feeling car than the heavy-duty Newport. That seemed odd but in retrospect it shows how the letter cars weren’t all that special any more. It seems ironic to me now, that the 300L grill with its cross-shaped insert, would today adorn a Dodge, but with a Ram head instead of the 300L badge.

Both were beautiful cars and, well-kept (I admit, as the family car guy, I helped), served for a long time. The 1965 Newport, finally smashed by a careless taxicab driver, was replaced by a 1979 Chrysler LeBaron with a 318; the 1965 300L by a Plymouth Reliant, though that uncle insisted on the slightly bigger Mitsubishi 2.6 engine. The 300L was still running and intact. I’d have liked to have gotten it but only had second-dibs on it.

I think if I could go back in time, I’d go back to 1965 and just wander around car showrooms for a few days, or weeks, or months. Of course, I’m biased, having four ’65 model cars, but it was a great year for vehicles.

I’m not sure that the subject car is a 300L at all – it may very well be a plain 300. It’s missing the trim piece just in front of the rear bumper. For that matter, it’s also missing the trim piece that appears on plain 300’s. 300 and 300L wheel covers had red, white, and blue trim around the centers rather than gold. 300L’s had a red stripe down the middle of the chrome trim that starts at the headlights and runs along the belt line clear to the back of the car. From the angle of the photo I can’t tell if it has the correct 300L grille or the plain 300 piece. Here’s a pic of my old 300L in its spot at LeMay’s.

The subject car is still a pretty car, in a surprisingly quite rare color scheme.

I did some checking and I believe you’re right Pete. It has the red overlay on the grille crossbar and the three horizontal trim pieces on the side molding. I’ve updated the post to reflect the car’s non Letter Series status. Thanks!

I had an opportunity to buy a ’65 300 L convertible with a 4 speed in 1989 for $5,000. Unfortunately, I was just out of school and couldn’t scrape the cash together. I ended up buying my ’66 T-Bird for $1,500. The 300 didn’t need much while the Bird needed a full restoration that took me 3 years to complete. In retrospect the 300 would have been a much better buy.

Back around 1979-80, I belonged to the WPC club. They ran a contest to identify pictures of details (like our CC clues). The prize for the winner was to be a 1965 300L, as is/where is. I studied the snot out of that issue for a month and ended up winning the contest. Unfortunately, they announced that there had not been enough entrants to afford to buy the car. I got some kind of consolation prize, but cannot recall what.

I was disappointed (an understatement) but let it go, as I probably could not have afforded to transport the car home, and would have had no place to keep it. However, if the guy in charge of that contest is out there and if you feel any pangs of conscience, let me know where I can pick up my 300L, because I think I’m ready for it now. :).

I have many pleasant memories of being driven around in my grandfather’s 1965 New Yorker 4-door hardtop, in Turquoise Frost. Had the same wheel covers, which I’d nominate as Chrysler’s best. Engel’s best pre-fuselage clean-slate design, in my opinion – and it makes you wonder what he would’ve done for a truly clean slate Imperial in ’64.

My father had a similar kind of car, a 1967 Dodge Monaco 4-door hardtop, 383 4BBL, black vinyl roof, light metallic blue paint, black vinyl interior. He was the second owner, bought it in 1968 with under 20,000 miles on it. That car was a SMOOTH BEAST! I was 18 at the time, and only drove it a few times, but loved it. I wish I had bought it from him when he was done with it, but they sold it for a few hundred bucks to a neighbor gal who needed reliable wheels. Argh! But, that’s about what they were going for, about 20 years old, fully depreciated. The upholstery had no rips, and everything still worked. No rust. No dents. I loved that car. And it looked SO nice with all the windows down.

Geeze, that’s a pretty car. Early-production ’65s had clear taillights with red glass balloons over the bulbs. For reasons now shrouded in mystery and myth, conventional red lenses were substituted partway through production.

Clear lenses only on New Yorkers, and only in the first half (or part) of the year due to some states not certifying them. So, not all New Yorkers have them. The red caps over the light bulbs are actually made out of glass.

You can see the resemblance between the 1965 Chrysler New Yorker’s rear “Squashed Tube” grill (as Engel called it), and the 1961-63 Lincoln Continental’s rear “Squashed Tube grill.

Bill, shoot me an email, will you? My address is on my site. I have a document I’d like to send you, that’s relevant to your interests.

As for the clear lenses: “Some states didn’t approve them” is one reason that’s commonly kicked around. It’s semi-plausible; before Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard № 108 took effect in 1968, each state had to approve each lighting device—hence the situation in ’57 when some states allowed the 4-headlamp system and others didn’t. But as for the clear ’65 Chrysler tail lenses, this reason is also semi-not-plausible: states would have to approve lighting devices before the vehicles went on sale, so a situation of “Oh, darn, well, we sold ’em that way until the state made up its mind, and unfortunately they decided to say no” wouldn’t happen. It would also be highly unusual for a state to issue an approval and then revoke it. About the only state-approval-based reason I think would be realistic enough to have possibly happened would be for Chrysler to have started off selling equipped cars only in states that had said OK (as they did in ’57 with 4-headlamp cars), but then decided it would be easier to have just one kind of taillamp for all 50 states.

Another reason that’s been put forward is that the clear-lens lamps were more expensive to make. Yep, that’s certainly true. Those red glass filters, their retainer rings, the separate red reflex reflectors—all increased parts count versus red-lens taillamps. So that’s a plausible reason.

Another: the clear lenses showed condensation a lot more readily than red lenses, and normal amounts of condensation that would be difficult to see with a red lens were generating owner complaints and costly warranty claims. Mmmmm…I donno. Maybe.

Another: the clear lenses had a high defect rate and so Chrysler eventually gave up on them. This one seems like a more plausible version of the condensation idea; casting flaws would be much easier to see in a clear lens than in a red one.

Another: the clear lenses were found not to comply with Federal standards. Nope, this one can be rejected out of hand; there were no Federal standards til ’68.

But all I’ve ever seen or heard is speculation—never any documentation. I don’t have ’65 Chrysler TSBs, so I don’t know if one was issued.

In any event, I’ve always thought the ’65 Chrysler clear lenses look a whole lot niftier than any other implementation of clear taillight lenses before or since.

LiteWerk

Posted November 11, 2017 at 12:39 PM

I’ve seen a few of the clear lens taillights over the years, well mostly back in the day, and I personally never cared for them. The red lens on a white car looks better to me. I like the color contrast. I can see that it has a red interior which I would like in a white car. And, that is a very nice old Chrysler.

Whilst I find 40s, 50s American cars fascinating, the 1960 – 1969 cars are really stylish, more grown up but still full of optimism and swagger.

Enjoy watching the reruns of 60s American TV series, the Outer Limits seem to have Lincoln Continentals, recently The Invaders just finished and I loved the look of the 65, 66 Fords in it.

I can see why the performance people went to the mid size cars though, nothing kills acceleration like weight. Forgive the stereotype but it seem to me that Americans are obsessed with acceleration up to 60, whereas Europeans are more interested in performance over 60 rating handling and braking just as much as acceleration. I put it down to the different driving environment

PS in total agreement about non period accessories, especially wide whites

Unfortunately the fans of American cars in the UK tack on as many things as possible including American flags draped over the seats. In the UK it seems to be as many grill badges as possible or chrome wires, even white wall tyres on 50s 60s Fords, you would almost never see them on the cars when new

To each his own and I don’t want to spoil their fun but I really enjoy seeing them as close to stock as possible, at a show there was one 66 Pontiac in metallic green that looks like it came straight off an episode of the Invaders, lovely

As a now more mature American guy, I was never that much into all the zero to sixty stuff, aside from bragging rights. And for most of my life, especially now, I tend to more greatly appreciate a BALANCE of power, ride and handling along with comfortable seats, adequate visibility, adequate trunk space and decent fuel mileage when driven sensibly.

In the summer of 1969, my friend was desperate to get a car to drive to our final year of high school, checking the back lots for something cool and cheap. The Chrysler-Plymouth dealer had a white ’65 300L convertible with the 4-speed! Before you gasp thinking how great, know that for a five model year old car, it had had a HARD life up until then. Rust blotches, scratches, dull paint, gold interior with seams split, dirty, convertible top ratty, exhaust system shot. Cheap! How Cheap? $595.00!

The NADA July 1969 Used Car Guide list that model at $1,575 retail, gives you an idea how bad shape this car was.

It was incredibly fast as he ran it through the gears, it sounded great. But, even to teenagers without much automotive experience, the car was clearly a wreak. He walked away, it would have nickel-ed and dime-ed him to death. But it was probably the rarest car he ever had the chance to buy.

Did see it a couple more times driven by a young dude who was ringing out the performance out of it to the maximum. Doubtful it saw a more than a couple years of hard use before it hit the junkyard.